2/10
I never write reviews on here but I wanted to save any other Night at the Museum fans the trouble of trying to scrub this film from their minds
25 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I don't really know how this film could have been further from the spirit of the franchise. The ending defeated the entire purpose of the two films that came before it. In each of the other films the main driving goal of the plot was to save the tablet so the museum will keep coming to life. In the first film they fight the old night guards and race through Central Park to see that this happens. In the second film they wage an epic battle at the Smithsonian against creatures from the very Netherworld just to see that this happens. In the third and final film they travel all the way to London to see that this happens....and then just give up and decide that it doesn't matter if they come to life or not; they're fine just being lifeless, inanimate museum displays. If that's the case then what was the point of everything they did before? Why not just let the old night guards have the tablet in the first film and be done with it?

They not only basically killed off every single character from the franchise, but they did it for no good reason at all. If it was supposedly so important that this Egyptian family be together (which I find hard to care about since we don't even know these characters) why couldn't the parents just come back to New York? They didn't even try. They were just like "Nope, we're good being dead" when every film has been about fighting to stay alive. I have no clue what they were thinking here with this plot.

To make it even worse they recast the son, Nick, into this new actor who looks nothing like the other boy who probably would be of a somewhat comparable age so it's beyond me why they did it, but the far worse offense than simple recasting was to change the entire personality of the boy. For the previous two films he was a good kid, precocious, close to his dad and loved that the museum came to live. Now he's a lazy, back-talking punk who wants to drop out of school to be an underground DJ having wild parties at his dad's place at 3 in the morning and who seems to care less about the museum or any of its inhabitants. Why rewrite and ruin a character that way for some tromped up father/son angst that feels forced and falls terribly flat?

And to top it all off, not only was the plot severely lacking and filled with holes and ludicrousness (like where was security when Lancelot crashed the Hugh Jackman play?) the film wasn't even funny. I was sitting in a packed theater and there was rarely any laughter at all. I loved the first two films but I couldn't have felt more different about this one. The ending where they killed everyone off was just the cherry on top of the disdain I'd already developed for this. In my mind, the franchise stopped at the second film which had a lovely and perfect ending for all the characters. They should have just left well enough alone but they got greedy to make more money where no more story existed.
33 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed